Abstract
Although the contribution of scientometric literature to policies on academic science has been substantial, the literature has focused primarily on the production of scientific knowledge, whereas limited attention has been paid to the other critical mission of academic institutions, i.e., education or the production of scientists. To address this limitation and better inform policymakers, the current study proposes a new approach drawing on Ph.D. dissertation data, which we believe should open up a new avenue of scientometric research. Integrating dissertation data with more traditional types of scientometric data such as publications and careers, this study presents a case study of the Japanese science system investigating its transition since the 1970s.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Examples include Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (http://www.ndltd.org/) and OAIster® database (http://www.oclc.org/oaister.en.html).
Explore the British Library (http://explore.bl.uk).
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (http://www.d-nb.de/).
LIBRIS (http://libris.kb.se/index.jsp).
Sudoc (Systeme universitaire de documentation) (http://www.sudoc.abes.fr/).
Netzwerk von Bibliotheken und Informationsstellen in der Schweiz (NEBIS) (http://www.nebis.ch/).
China Academic Library and Information System (http://etd.calis.edu.cn/).
A part of the dissertations are electronically available (https://rnavi.ndl.go.jp/research_guide/entry/theme-honbun-100044.php).
Although submission of dissertations is mandatory, about 4 % of dissertations end up not submitted. According to NDL, it takes about 3 years to complete registering 90 % of all dissertations after their publications.
Paper-based PhDs account for 19 % of all Ph.Ds as of 2008.
The full names of graduates in the dissertation database and grantees in the GiA database are given in Chinese/Japanese letters as well as in the alphabet. This substantially mitigates the name ambiguity problem for integration.
Thus, postdocs are not included. We also tried longer time window to identify academics, which did not substantially change the result.
An obvious limitation of our approach is that researchers who do not receive GiA funding can be neglected and exit from academic careers can be overestimated. Nonetheless, a survey of GiA grantees in 2006 indicates that only 3 % of academic researchers depended for the majority of their research budget on funding sources other than GiA (Iida 2007: Ch. 6). Among the top seven national universities, Shibayama (2011) showed that about 84 % of full and associate professors received GiA funding at least once in the period 2001–2005. Since academics in private universities are less dependent on GiA, our measurements may be less reliable in such cases. Similarly, HASS fields are less dependent on GiA, which is partly why we focus on STEM fields.
It is often the case that Ph.D. degrees are not required to assume professorship and that degrees are awarded long after graduation.
We excluded foreigners also because name matching is difficult for foreign names, which are spelled in Japanese characters in many different ways.
Source: School Basic Survey (http://www.mext.go.jp/b_menu/toukei/chousa01/kihon/1267995.htm).
Universities of Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Tohoku, Nagoya, Kyushu, Hokkaido.
A few universities offer 5-year integrated Ph.D. programs. Ph.D. programs in some fields take 4 years, such as in Medicine, Veterinary sciences, and Pharmacy.
Kato and Chayama (2010) find that 32 % of STEM master students changed supervisors from their undergraduate training.
The government controls the admission quota of undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Japanese universities. See Ehara and Umakoshi (2004) for more detail about the reform.
Another possibility is that scientists become more likely to be nationally funded in earlier career stages.
We excluded small fields (e.g., Dentistry, Pharmacy) in the field breakdown analyses.
A Lorenz curve is a graphical representation of the cumulative distribution function of, in this case, Ph.D. production. When the curve is away from the line of equality, it suggests that the distribution is skewed toward a small number of universities.
The Gini coefficient is defined as the ratio of the area between the line of equality and the Lorenz curve divided by the total area under the line of equality (Dorfman 1979). Gini coefficient is often used as a measure of inequality. It has several advantageous features such as scale independence and population independence (Ray 1998), which allows us to make inter-temporal and field comparison although the numbers of Ph.Ds and universities are different.
Before the reform, most Ph.D. students were recruited among the graduates from the same university. This was considerably changed due to the increase in the Ph.D. quota. Certainly, graduates from lower-ranked universities desire to enroll in higher-ranked Ph.D. programs. The reform made this feasible, and more importantly, higher-ranked universities are incentivized to enroll many students, which increases labor input as well as block grant allocation (Ehara and Umakoshi 2004: Ch. 3).
The transition of publication distribution is also illustrated as Lorenz curves Fig. 11.
All top seven pre-imperial (large circles) and most top 20 (medium circles) are below the 45-degree line.
References
Andersen, J. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2011). Price revisited: On the growth of dissertations in eight research fields. Scientometrics, 88, 371–383.
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22, 716–740.
Council, N. R. (1998). Trends in the early careers of life scientists Washington. D. C.: National Academy Press.
Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., & Yahia, M. (2011). The Ph.D. factory. Nature, 472, 276–279.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23, 487–521.
Delamont, S., & Atkinson, P. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 31, 87–107.
Dorfman, R. (1979). Formula for the gini coefficient. Review of Economics and Statistics, 61, 146–149.
Ehara, T., & Umakoshi, T. (2004). Reform of graduate education in japan. Tokyo: Toshindo.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Fernandez-Cano, A., Torralbo, M., & Vallejo, M. (2012). Time series of scientific growth in Spanish doctoral theses (1848–2009). Scientometrics, 91, 15–36.
Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity—mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293–305.
Franzoni, C., Scellato, G., & Stephan, P. (2012). Foreign-born scientists: Mobility patterns for 16 countries. Nature Biotechnology, 30, 1250–1253.
Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899–933.
Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation—journals can be ranked by frequency and impact of citations for science policy studies. Science, 178, 471–479.
Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2002). Using curriculum vitae to compare some impacts of nsf research grants with research center funding. Research Evaluation, 11, 17–26.
Geuna, A. (2015). Global mobility of research scientists: The economics of who goes where and why. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277–304.
Hackett, E. J. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s—the changing organizational culture of academic science. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 241–279.
Haeussler, C., & Sauermann, H. (2012). Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship. Research Policy, 42, 688–703.
Han, C. S. (2011). On the demographical changes of us research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields. Scientometrics, 89, 845–865.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 507–542.
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41, 251–261.
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16569–16572.
Iida, M. (2007). The history of GiA. Tokyo: The Science News Ltd.
Kato, M., & Chayama, H. (2010). Graduate student mobility between higher education institutions in japan: Opprtunities and issues of students in master’s courses of science and engineering, NISTEP Research Material (Vol. 174). Tokyo: NISTEP.
Kato, M., Kanegae, Y., & Chayama, H. (2012). Doctoral graduates survey 2011: Analysis on research training and education in doctoral programs in Japanese university, NISTEP Research Material (Vol. 217). Tokyo: NISTEP.
Kneller, R. (2010). The changing governance of japanese public science. In R. Whitley, J. Gläser, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relations in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation (pp. 110–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Laudel, G., & Glaser, J. (2008). From apprentice to colleague: The metamorphosis of early career researchers. Higher Education, 55, 387–406.
Marsh, H. W., Rowe, K. J., & Martin, A. (2002). Ph.D. students’ evaluations of research supervision—issues, complexities, and challenges in a nationwide australian experiment in benchmarking universities. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 313–348.
Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36, 363–377.
Misu, T., Horoiwa, A., & Chayama, S. (2010). Career paths of recent doctoral graduates in science, NISTEP Research Material (Vol. 184). Tokyo: NISTEP.
Morichika, N., & Shibayama, S. (2015). Impact of inbreeding on scientific productivity: A case study of a Japanese university department. Research Evaluation, 24, 146–157.
Ray, D. (1998). Development economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
RIHE. (2006). Reports of changing academic profession project workshop on quality, relevance, and governance in the changing academia: International perspectives, COE publication series. Hiroshima: Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University.
Salonius, A. (2007). Working in the lab: Social organization of research and training in biomedical research labs in Canada and its relationship to research funding. McGill University thesis, McGill University, Quebec.
Shibayama, S. (2011). Distribution of academic research funds: A case of Japanese national research grant. Scientometrics, 88, 43–60.
Shibayama, S., Baba, Y., & Walsh, J. P. (2015). Organizational design of university laboratories: Task allocation and lab performance in Japanese bioscience laboratories. Research Policy, 44, 610–622.
Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62, 133–143.
Yamanoi, A. (2007). Academic marketplace in Japan. Tokyo: Tamagawa Univ Press.
Zerhouni, E. A. (2006). Research funding—NIH in the post-doubling era: Realities and strategies. Science, 314, 1088–1090.
Zong, Q. J., Shen, H. Z., Yuan, Q. J., Hu, X. W., Hou, Z. P., & Deng, S. G. (2013). Doctoral dissertations of library and information science in China: A co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 94, 781–799.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by Hoansha Foundation Fellowship, Inamori Foundation, and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under Grant-in-Aid for Encouragement of Young Scientists (B) #24710160.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Morichika, N., Shibayama, S. Use of dissertation data in science policy research. Scientometrics 108, 221–241 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1962-x
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1962-x